Are you in the right denomination?

[Heinrich]

hi

I didn't understand all the questions English is my second language..

#1 Assemblies of God
#2 Methodist/Weslyian Church (What is Weslyian?)
#3 7th day adventists. What on earth is this doing here?
#4 Southern Baptist
#5 Free will baptist
#21 RC

Doesn't seem to bad but I think this method is fallible in every way.
And in the end it doesn't really prove anything accept that all churches are not the same

 

[charligirl]

Apparantly I am reformed Baptist.. what is one of those then?? I'm non denominational!

 

[orthotomeo]

The question is flawed - it shouldn't be "Are you in the right denomination," but "Are denominations biblical?" Thanks,

o.

 

[charligirl]

The question is flawed - it shouldn't be "Are you in the right denomination," but "Are denominations biblical?" Thanks,

o.

Pharisee, sadducces... I'm sure there were others......Definately biblical, but not necessarily recommended

 

[orthotomeo]

Charligirl,

Thanks, but I'm talking in reference to the Body of Christ, not Israel.

Believers today are supposed be united around the seven "ones" of Ephesians ch. 4. We are not.

Paul says there is "one baptism" (and that without water) yet water baptism(s) are, historically, one of the most common dividing points among believers (every denomination has its own formula and reasons for being water baptized, and everyone else's is wrong).

That's confusion, and God doesn't author confusion. That's why denominationalism cannot be honoring to God.

As for the "which denomination are you?" test, I don't have a denomination at all - or anything resembling one - yet the closest hole the test pegged me into was "Southern Baptist." This, even though I oppose all forms of water baptism, and said so! The test is less than comprehensive, and a waste of time. That's just my two cents, tho.

o.

 

[charligirl]

Charligirl,

Thanks, but I'm talking in reference to the Body of Christ, not Israel.

Believers today are supposed be united around the seven "ones" of Ephesians ch. 4. We are not.

Paul says there is "one baptism" (and that without water) yet water baptism(s) are, historically, one of the most common dividing points among believers (every denomination has its own formula and reasons for being water baptized, and everyone else's is wrong).

That's confusion, and God doesn't author confusion. That's why denominationalism cannot be honoring to God.

As for the "which denomination are you?" test, I don't have a denomination at all - or anything resembling one - yet the closest hole the test pegged me into was "Southern Baptist." This, even though I oppose all forms of water baptism, and said so! The test is less than comprehensive, and a waste of time. That's just my two cents, tho.

o.

OK, I was only being lighthearted though,it wasn't a serious reply to your question.

 

[orthotomeo]

I take it very seriously.

No hard feelings, tho,

o.

 

[charligirl]

I take it very seriously.

No hard feelings, tho,

o.

Ok, sorry.

I'm personally not happy about denominations but I think people get too upset about them. We are all one body and one church no matter how we choose to worship. As long as we agree on the fundamentals, that Jesus is God's son, He died for our sins and rose from the dead and He is the only way. The other things should not cause so much concern.

Personally I believe in water baptism because the word means submersion or immersion, and in the NT baptism was practised in water. But it's not a requirement of salvation, so if someone doesn't believe in it that's ok, it's their interpretation.

 

[orthotomeo]

I'm personally not happy about denominations but I think people get too upset about them. We are all one body and one church no matter how we choose to worship. As long as we agree on the fundamentals, that Jesus is God's son, He died for our sins and rose from the dead and He is the only way. The other things should not cause so much concern.

I respectfully disagree - I don't think you're upset enough about it.

As you will recall, the Corinthians were divided by following men, just as denominations have been for centuries.

What did Paul tell them? Did he say (by inspiration!) that he was okay with that - as long as they agreed on the basics of the faith, whatever else they disagreed on was no big deal?

No. He told them to be "of the same mind" (1 Cor 1:10). Denominationalism as as opposed to that as you can get.

He asked them if Christ was divided (1:13). They were all members of Christ's Body, but because of their dividing one from another they were, in a very real sense, dividing Christ. But at least they were all still in the same church - not so today.

In 2 Cor 13:11 Paul again commanded them to "be of one mind." From what his letter indicates, the Corinthians laid aside their carnality and tried to do exactly that. Can we say the same for denominations, or even many churches within denominations? No.

So do you still think it's possible to get too upset over this? I ask because Paul seemed rather upset himself. What say ye?

o.

PS As for baptism(s), Paul said there is only one.

1 + 1 = 2, not 1.

Either Paul was correct that there is only one, or denominations are correct that there are MORE than one. Which do you believe?

 

[charligirl]

As you will recall, the Corinthians were divided by following men, just as denominations have been for centuries.

What did Paul tell them? Did he say (by inspiration!) that he was okay with that - as long as they agreed on the basics of the faith, whatever else they disagreed on was no big deal?

I think we should all be of one mind, but we are human, the bible is open to interpretation and it is not possible that we are ever all going to agree on everything. What IS important is the fundamentals of faith, whether you choose to stand and sing or I choose to sit and sing, or you eat meat and I don't really makes no difference.

If someone was to tell me water baptism is a requirement of salvation then I would have a problem, as I would if I was told the Virgin Mary can forgive me of my sins, they are fundamentals.

Paul teaches that we should not dispute over doubtful things, such as which day to worship on, or what to eat. His first example deals with 'church' tradition and the second with our lives.

Romans 14


The Law of Liberty


The Law of Liberty and the Law of Love
1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
5One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord;[1] and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. 7For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 9For to this end Christ died and rose[2] and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 10But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.[3] 11For it is written:


"As I live, says the LORD,
Every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall confess to God."[4]


12So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. 13Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way.

In 2 Cor 13:11 Paul again commanded them to "be of one mind." From what his letter indicates, the Corinthians laid aside their carnality and tried to do exactly that. Can we say the same for denominations, or even many churches within denominations? No.

So do you still think it's possible to get too upset over this? I ask because Paul seemed rather upset himself. What say ye?

I don;t think I explained myself clearly, when I said people get too upset about it, I meant people get too upset about the differences between the denominations, not that it's wrong to be upset that there is division. It's the people who point fingers at other churches and say their way is wrong who should chill out.

Of course i am upset that there is division and backbiting, it is completely wrong... and is tearing the Body of CHrist apart, until we are unified we are going to have a hard time winning anyone when we cannot love our other body members...

The problem is people getting all bent out of shape about the insignificant things, THAT is terrible, that causes the arguments.

Someone had a revelation the other day about 'the curse of Babel' he asked God what He meant by that. God showed him a conversation amongst 3 christian friends who were all arguing over a point of doctrine.... he stepped back and watched, he saw that actually, deep down, fundamentally, they were in agreement but they were all arguing their point, and none could understand the other.

The body of Christ does this, Yes, be concerned about false doctrine and denominations that are heretic, that say, for example, Christ wasn't God's son, or you can get to heaven by other routes if more people were less concerned. But as Paul teaches, there are many different things that people do, which do not really matter. So what if one denomination has made it their doctine to wave incense in church, or another to worship with no music, only voices... it's really not important.

We need to unite with one voice with the message that Jesus is God, is the only way to salvation, is alive today, is coming again and if you choose to wave banners or sit in silence to celebrate that is really neither here nor there.

 

[orthotomeo]

Believe me, I'm not trying to pick a fight. But I have to ask:

Personally I believe in water baptism...But it's not a requirement of salvation, so if someone doesn't believe in it that's ok, it's their interpretation.

So why believe in it at all? Why practice it at all?

Just curious,

o.

 

[orthotomeo]

First, I want to say it just dawned on me how amazing it is that we can sit here, thousands of miles apart, having this conversation! Wow. And I do appreciate talking with you, and I am not judging you in any way (in case that's how it's coming across).

I think we should all be of one mind, but we are human, the bible is open to interpretation and it is not possible that we are ever all going to agree on everything.

Agian, Paul said it IS possible for us to do exactly that. Of course we still have our old sin nature inside, which leads to pride and carnality (a big part of where denominations came from). Yet we are still responsible to God, based on what His Word says, to acknowledge what He has a right to expect of us (unity).

Disputable matters like diet and days of worship are not the point - we (Christians as a whole) have built denominations on disagreements about things about which we have no room - biblically - to disagree. That's the problem, as I see it.

Where I'm coming from on this - and I welcome your opinion - I and those like me see the distinction between Christ's teachings "according to the flesh" (2 Cor 5:16) and His teachings "according to the revelation of the mystery" (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:8-9). Have you ever studied on that before?

Yours in Him,

o.

 

[charligirl]

Jesus himself was baptised in water.

Throughout Acts baptism follows the decision to become a believer... and as we can see from the following examples, that was water baptism.

Acts 8
35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"
37Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may."
And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."[1]

Acts 10
46For they heard them talking in [unknown] tongues (languages) and extolling and magnifying God. Then Peter asked,
47Can anyone forbid or refuse water for baptizing these people, seeing that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?
48And he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (the Messiah). Then they begged him to stay on there for some days.

Acts 16
32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family.

The word means submersion or immersion, when the bible was written water baptism was accepted and commonplace, the word would have meant nothing else to the writers.

That is my reason

 

[Apologetic]

To my knowledge, Assemblies of God churches are WOF-churches, yes?

I am a Protestant in many ways, but not in all ways. The test said I am a Mennonite brother/sister... I've never heard of them...

 

[orthotomeo]

To my knowledge, Assemblies of God churches are WOF-churches, yes?

Some, perhaps, but not all. Many pentecostals oppose it. I recall hearing that, back in the 80s, the Assemblies of God came out with a position paper against WoF and similar teachings.Don't know if they still go by it.

o.

 

[orthotomeo]

Jesus himself was baptised in water.

Jesus said He was doing it "to fulfill all righteousness." Is that the reason you follow Him in baptism, so that you, too, can "fulfill all righteousness"?

Throughout Acts baptism follows the decision to become a believer... and as we can see from the following examples, that was water baptism.

Acts 8
35Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"
37Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may."
And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."[1]

First, the book of Acts is a historical record of what happened during a transitional period of time, during which many things were in flux. We must, therefore, be VERY careful when building doctirines on what happened during that period.

The Ethiopian was water baptized. But he was already a proselyete...religiously he was considered a Jew. His baptism by Philip was the baptism associated with the Gospel of the Kingdom (Mark 16), as opposed to the Gospel of the grace of God - what Paul called "my gospel" - which has no water ritual associated with it.

Acts 10
46For they heard them talking in [unknown] tongues (languages) and extolling and magnifying God. Then Peter asked,
47Can anyone forbid or refuse water for baptizing these people, seeing that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?
48And he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (the Messiah). Then they begged him to stay on there for some days.

Did you notice how Peter was STUNNED when these Gentiles (not proselytes like the Ethiopian) were saved BEFORE Peter even got to the point of his message? He water baptized them because that was part of the so-called Great Commission Christ gave him, but the order was completely reversed, hence Peter's confusion.

Acts 16
32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family.

It is true Paul baptized some during his early ministry. But during that same period, he also spoke with tongues, wrought miracles, circumcised Timothy and took a Jewish oath. Are these things are in order for today as well?

My point is: because of the transitional nature of the Acts period, we can't build baptisic doctrine and practice on the mere fact that Paul did baptize during a time when sign gifts were in force - especially when he later said in his letters that NOW there is "one baptism," and that baptism does not involve water.

Notice also: Does Paul ever once command water baptism in his letters, or even describe it? If you know of such a verse, please tell me where it is!

The word means submersion or immersion, when the bible was written water baptism was accepted and commonplace, the word would have meant nothing else to the writers.

Hm. The Bible speaks of Israel being baptized unto Moses (1 Cor 10:1-4). Do you take this to mean they were "submerged" or "immersed" into Moses?

o.

 

[orthotomeo]

If you're interested, I'll start a new thread on this over in the Exposition area.

o.

 

[orthotomeo]

"How Many Baptisms in Scripture?"

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1742271#post1742271

 

[Jim B]

Some, perhaps, but not all. Many pentecostals oppose it. I recall hearing that, back in the 80s, the Assemblies of God came out with a position paper against WoF and similar teachings.Don't know if they still go by it.

o.

Apparently they do. They have a position paper on The Believer And Positive Confession, see: http://ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/4183_confession.cfm

I think one of the reasons I left the AG (God bless ‘em!) was their growing tendency to spell out what we were to believe, to do our thinking for us. In addition to their 16 Fundamental Truths, they have the politically correct slant on “22 General Doctrines,” a long list of “Position Papers” (like the one above) on a whole host of approved/disapproved doctrines, and AG “Perspectives” on “commonly held beliefs based on scripture which have been endorsed by the church's Commission on Doctrinal Purity and the Executive Presbytery.” And the lists are getting longer the more centralized the denomination becomes.

That’s what happens when men seek control of others. It is the inevitable deterioration of man-made religious groups (i.e., denominations). It will, I am sure, eventually poison the denomination I am now affiliated with. If it does, I'm bailing out! Again.

I guess my problem with all of this, in any denomination, is the tendency of the few to do the thinking for the many. During my 30 years as a minister in the denomination, I was never asked what I believed; only told what I had to believe. In fact, on my annual credentials renewal form I was expressly asked what my views were on certain pet doctrines but the implication was that if I failed to answer them in the proper p.c. manner I would be called on the carpet.

\o/

 

[orthotomeo]

I've been there too, Jim (not in Pentecostal circles, but indie/fundie Baptist ones).

My wife and I went to join an indie/fundie Baptist church some years ago. We stood in the lobby talking with the pastor after the service...he never once asked what Gospel we'd believed (there are many to choose from today), but he did ask - TWICE! - if we'd been water baptized. Unbelievable, yet sadly believable. We bailed not long after.

o.